Journal des débats 1985-déc-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It gives me great pleasure to announce this morning that Dr. James Milton Ham, one of our province's most distinguished educators, administrators and public policy advisers, has accepted the government's invitation to become the first chairman of the new Industrial Disease Standards Panel under the Workers' Compensation Act.

As honourable members will know, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel is one of the most important innovations to be put into place by the recent reform amendments to the act.

Under the new act, it is the function of the panel to investigate possible industrial diseases, make findings as to causation or connection with industrial processes and review and develop criteria for the evaluation and adjudication of workers' compensation claims. It will report publicly.

Before acting on its findings, the Workers' Compensation Board will be required to set out the nature of those findings and call for comment, briefs and submissions. In this way, the whole process of determining compensation policy and practice for industrial disease will be significantly more open and consultative than has been the case in the past.

In my discussions with Dr. Ham, we both agreed that the panel's work could be effectively carried out only if it had access to all available specific information and if it had the understanding of all parties. Further, it will require that where the conditions of information and understanding are inadequate, the panel will be expected to stimulate all parties of interests, including, not least, the medical and engineering professions, to advance these dimensions of the problem.

Dr. Ham brings to his task as the panel's first chairman a rich background in the connections among science, technology and public policy. An electrical engineer by training, he is a past dean of applied science and engineering at the University of Toronto, and in 1978 he rose to the presidency of that university.

Immediately before returning to his present position as professor of science, technology and public policy at the university, Dr. Ham was a fellow of the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC, where his major project involved exploring the nature and efficacy of public policy approaches to the improvement of industrial health and safety in the United States at both state and federal levels.

As honourable members will recall, Dr. Ham also served as chairman of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines. The report of that royal commission established some of the vital underpinnings of the modern-day occupational health and safety regime in Ontario. In this context, he is therefore uniquely qualified to chair the panel, which will be composed of persons representative of the public as well as of the scientific, technical and professional communities.

Dr. Ham is with us in the visitors' gallery this morning. I know all members will want to join me in wishing him well in his new assignment.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat curious. I have read the statement from beginning to end, and I cannot see one reference to the former Minister of Labour, Russell Ramsay, who initiated the Industrial Disease Standards panel. I am sure it is an oversight.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact there are only eight or nine ministers in the House, I wonder whether the Speaker might consider adjourning for 10 minutes so we can get more in.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider it; however, I do not see any point.

Mr. Harris: In view of that, I wonder whether the House might entertain a unanimous motion to go to orders of the day with an understanding that we will revert to question period when the ministers are here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can understand the House leader's views, because I have experienced the same feeling on Friday mornings on occasion. We are prepared to respond to questions. If the members have specific questions for my colleagues who are not here, we can take them as notice. I can inform the members that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) are not expected to attend the session today.

Mr. McClellan: We are ready to proceed with questions. We are used to the inconvenience of not having all the cabinet present on Friday mornings. That has been the case in the 10 years I have been in the House. What we normally do on Fridays is prepare more than two questions. If the government House leader understands that the official opposition have only two questions written for their leader, they can stand the questions down and we will be willing to start the question period.

Mr. Grossman: We have already accomplished a great deal this morning. The government House leader has indicated that his party is prepared to respond to questions, which will be a great accomplishment, and the New Democratic Party House leader has indicated his party is prepared to ask some this morning, which will also be a great accomplishment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can he tell us -- let us laughingly say specifically -- whether in the matter of the proposed sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., the government is requiring four essential terms to any agreement for that sale? I ask him to remember that we do not want a history of UTDC; we want to know whether he is prepared to get these undertakings.

I ask whether the minister is going to insist on the following terms: (1) preservation or expansion of employment levels at the Kingston and Thunder Bay plants, (2) preservation or expansion of the existing engineering design or research and development staff in operations that are essential to the development of Canadian transit technology, (3) maintenance of an integrated manufacturing and assembly operation at both Thunder Bay and Kingston and (4) some substantial Canadian ownership interest in the company, preferably Canadian control?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: All those things are being considered and will be uppermost in our minds when we consider any future sale.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that those are precisely the four things the Premier (Mr. Peterson) demanded of the federal government on the proposed sale of de Havilland. Those are excerpts right out of his letter to the Prime Minister. If those are the things he was prepared to demand of the federal government on the proposed sale of de Havilland, let me ask the minister, not whether he is prepared to consider the things the Premier demanded of the Prime Minister on de Havilland, but whether the government of Ontario, which does own this company, is prepared to insist on those four items on any proposed sale.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are indeed the ones who will be selling it and, unlike the honourable member's Tory friends in Ottawa, we will consider all those things seriously, and any sale will be based on that.

Mr. Rae: We have had enough of serious consideration from the minister; what we want are guarantees. The Premier wrote to Mr. Mulroney insisting on certain requirements and he trumpeted them all over the province as best he could.

Is the minister prepared today to make a commitment that unless there is a guarantee of jobs in Kingston and Thunder Bay, a guarantee with respect to research and development, a guarantee for integrated facilities that can produce cars from the beginning to the end and a guarantee with respect to Canadian interests, UTDC will not be sold?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, I will give the honourable member that guarantee.

Mr. Grossman: Wait until the Premier finds out what happened when he went away. He is getting more like Little Bo-peep all the time. His sheep are getting away and he never knows.

Can the minister tell us whether any contact has been made with any non-Canadian company with regard to the sale of UTDC? Second, can he give us an assurance that in no circumstances will a sale of UTDC be made to any non-Canadian company?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can confirm that no foreign buyers have been talked to.

Mr. Grossman: Will the minister guarantee not to sell it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: One question.

Mr. Grossman: Will he give us that guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member fluffed the question.

Mr. Grossman: He will get caught in the hall.

TOURISM BUDGET

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Will the minister confirm or deny: (1) that his ministry has suffered a $13-million reduction at the hands of the Treasurer; (2) that during the past 90 days, with him as minister, the following senior positions in his ministry, among others, have been vacated: (a) deputy minister, (b) assistant deputy minister of tourism; and (c) director of tourism marketing, and that an order to bail out his ministry --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to respond that there has been no reduction in our ministry as far as dollars are concerned; in fact, there has been an increase. If the honourable member reads the budget, he will find there has been an increase of some 20 per cent in our budget.

There have been some staff changes, and those are normal.

Mr. Rowe: The budget I read shows a $13-million reduction.

Has the minister made representation, written or otherwise, to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in an attempt to restore the totally insensitive $13-million reduction in the budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: If the member learned to read the budget our Treasurer put forth, he would find there is not a reduction, but an increase, in the ministry's budget. The Treasurer is very sensitive to the tourism industry, and he made that very clear when he brought down the budget.

I want to clarify that the figure he is reading includes a one-time figure of $30 million for the domed stadium. When one takes that out, one finds the tourism budget has really increased. The former minister is there and he might tell the member how to read those budget figures.

Mr. Rowe: Can the minister assure the House that the key positions I spoke of before, for the second most important industry in the province, will be filled immediately? Can he assure us today that he is in total control of the Titanic?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There are many good things going on in my ministry. I am in control. There have been many good changes, such as the Ontario Lottery Corp. distributorships, for which everyone in the province now has an opportunity to apply. Previously, when a distributorship came open, someone would reach into a barrel and pick the name of a friend. In the past, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) could get his brother-in-law a job as a distributor. Today that cannot be done.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Rae: I will try to raise the tone a little. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, also about the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

I was interested to hear the minister's clear statement with respect to those four guarantees. We are very glad to have them on the record today, to have them on tape and electronically transcribed. We appreciate the minister's clarity in that regard.

I am sure the minister is aware that one of the features of this business is a very extensive performance guarantee and bond that has to be posted by the government of Ontario, in this case as the guarantor of a crown corporation, with respect to all the major sales that UTDC has carried out so far: Vancouver, Detroit, Scarborough and so on.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister prepared to guarantee that if there is a sale, the government of Ontario will not continue to carry the can but that whoever is the ultimate purchaser of UTDC will be required to set out the performance guarantee?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can appreciate the question, but as it comes more directly under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I will make sure that minister is made aware of the question and will have an answer for the honourable member the first of the week.

Mr. Gillies: He is right here.

Mr. Rae: With respect, can I ask the minister to redirect the first question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton)?

Mr. Speaker: Is that question redirected to the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are very much aware of the concern raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae). It would be a prime consideration in any negotiations that would take place between ourselves, UTDC and any prospective purchaser.

Mr. Rae: Let us take it a step further. We made a little progress in the last round of questions. The minister is moving from a consideration to a guarantee. Is he prepared today to give this House the assurance that the public sector will not carry the can and that the private sector will not get all the profits with respect to this sale?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the House that any action taken in the sale and any transaction involving UTDC will be in the public interest of the people of Ontario.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Hennessy: It is all very well for the minister to make that reply, but there have been many meetings with UTDC; and every time there is a meeting, the people in Toronto have a different version of what they are going to do with UTDC or with Can-Car Rail in Thunder Bay. I am greatly concerned that they might pull a swifty, as they did with de Havilland.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a question.

Mr. Hennessy: Is the minister going to give us a guarantee that Can-Car Rail will not be sold?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I wonder if the member could repeat his question. I could not hear it with the noise from the other side.

Mr. Hennessy: I am very pleased to give a command performance. One does not often get an encore here. One gets an encore to carry one out.

Kirk Foley, the president of UTDC, has met with Can-Car many times. Is the minister going to guarantee that the Can-Car plant will not be closed? They are trying to play ping-pong between Kingston and Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Nothing that appeared in today's paper would cause anyone concern or is at variance with what the member was told on October 15 in Thunder Bay by Mr. Foley and staff.

Mr. Hennessy: I do not go by the paper. I am asking the minister.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to, if I may be charitable, the blowhard answer I got from the minister which simply stated that things would be done in the public interest. We always assume that everything is done in the public interest, but what is the public interest?

Will the minister specifically give the House the assurance that the government of Ontario will not simply sell off assets to the private sector and remain as a guarantor carrying the performance bond and all the liabilities? Can he give us the assurance the same kind of financial fiasco that happened with de Havilland will not happen with UTDC in relation to the public sector of this province?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am certain this government will act with far greater responsibility than the government in Ottawa did.

Mr. Rae: That is much too loose a test. Almost anybody could pass that one; it is not very difficult. The minister has not set his standards very high.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister will know the de Havilland deal is now at what is called the letter-of-intent stage. The press release of December 3 says, "The letter of intent signed by Minister Stevens, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Albrecht outlines two documents which will be finalized in the coming weeks."

The first of these, the acquisition agreement which covers the legal transfer of de Havilland, will represent the ending of crown ownership. Since the final details of the acquisition agreement have to be finalized, what representations has the minister made since the release of the letter of intent? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the conditions laid down in the letter of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on August 16 with respect to job guarantees and research and development are going to be in this final agreement?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the leader of the third party for the question. As I have mentioned, in a couple of discussions with the federal government people yesterday afternoon, which the member's party called for, I was told they would be pleased to give us a confidential briefing on the terms of those contracts. I would like to invite the leaders of both opposition parties to participate in reviewing those contracts. If both of them would let me know when it is convenient for them to do so, I will set up an appointment with the federal authorities.

Mr. Rae: I am not interested in having Sinc Stevens whisper the terms of the agreement in my ear, and I say to the minister flat out that I do not think he should be either. I am not asking him for a confidential briefing of any kind whatsoever.

I am asking him what representations Ontario is making today. Instead of getting down on his knees and saying, "My God, they are going to tell us something in private," and thinking that is an achievement, what is the minister doing before the final agreement is signed to fight to make sure he gets the job guarantee he has been talking about for five months?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I am not down on my knees to the member or to our friends across the road. Since the other party leaders are as interested and as concerned as I and my party are in this matter, perhaps they will let me know a date they will be free and we will set the thing up. Then we will know a little better how to approach the thing.

Mr. Grossman: I agree that meeting with us would give the minister a lot of information as to how better to approach it, to use his own words.

Will the minister be kind enough to give us all the details of all the trips made from here to Ottawa since last Monday? How many times did he go there? How many times did the Premier go to Ottawa? How many members of the lauded Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff have gone to Ottawa since Monday to press the alleged Peterson case for these guarantees? What has the minister done since Monday afternoon?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In the past few days, and especially yesterday, I have related exactly what we have done. I also told the Leader of the Opposition what we are prepared to do, if he intends to co-operate to see whether there is something we can do.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps one would say the Segal has landed.

Instead of talking about a confidential briefing, why not have Mr. de Cotret, Mr. Stevens and others involved in the sale come down to a committee of this House and justify to us in this Legislature why Ontario's interests are being sold out? Why not propose that as an alternative instead of getting sweet nothings from Sinc Stevens in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If we go to Ottawa those people may be present at the briefing; if not, maybe I can make that suggestion.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education concerning the teachers' strike in Wellington county that this government allowed to drag on interminably until forced into action by the prodding of members on this side of the House. The minister refused to become involved in the situation until the 12th hour, when he finally met with the concerned parties.

The minister must be aware that of the 8,200 students who were affected by the strike, 10 per cent have not returned to the classroom. Is the minister planning any program to try to get those youngsters back into the classroom to salvage their academic year and careers, and to check this pitiful waste of students? When the minister speaks on this, I think it is imperative he understands that he has a responsibility to the young people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I warn my friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) that he ought not to drown or asphyxiate in a sea or pool of self-congratulation. It is not particularly helpful.

I say that only because, when the government brought forward the legislation, I was informed the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was on the phone to the editorial offices of the Guelph Mercury demanding that he be given credit for all that had been done in that matter.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Twice.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) points out, there was not one call but two calls demanding that the Guelph Mercury give the Leader of the Opposition credit for the matter. Unfortunately, that says the opposition is much more worried about getting credit than about the students of Wellington county.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Publicity is mother's milk to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: To my reverend colleague the member for Scarborough Centre, I would simply indicate that, as he knows, a number of the students in question have enrolled in high school programs outside of the county. Others have obviously taken employment.

Mr. Davis: There are 168.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member is aware of those data. I am glad to hear him interject that.

The honourable gentleman will know that a number of those students have taken employment. We expect they will be returning to classes very shortly. At this very moment, the Wellington County Board of Education is in the process of contacting all the students in question to see if, as and when they intend to return. Our regional office has been in contact with the board and we are co-operating with the Wellington county board to ensure all of those students return to class, as I suspect most will in the very near future.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: At the start, I would say the Minister of Education should be ashamed of himself for talking about taking credit or giving blame. He has a responsibility to the students. Can he stand in his place in this House and honestly say the students of Wellington county will receive the same quality of education as other students in this province not affected by the strike?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend from Mount Forest, I was simply making the point that his leader was on the phone to the Guelph Mercury demanding credit. That is the action of the Leader of the Opposition. I was not on the phone to the Guelph newspaper; the Leader of the Opposition was. That is the reality.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that I am quite confident the students in Wellington county will be able to successfully complete their courses of study in this academic year, as was the case, for example, in the Sudbury area when his party, while in government, allowed the strike to go on 56 days.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Treasurer. At yesterday's rally at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the minister said his budget announcement on the transfer of OISE to the University of Toronto was just the beginning; that rationalization of the post-secondary system has to occur and he is going to do it. What further mergers, consolidations or even closures does he have in mind?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have none in mind.

Mr. Allen: If the Treasurer has nothing of that sort in mind, then what does he have in mind? He will remember very well the dilemma created by the Fisher report, which this critic cited time without end, which stated, "Either you fund up the system or you have to close it or radically reorganize." In the Stephenson years, we went all through those hoops and could not find a way through. Is the Treasurer telling us he is abandoning all the positions of the Liberal critics of recent years and heading back into the Stephenson years with a false hope and an impossible dilemma?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The leadership of the ministry in the Stephenson years was rather timorous and not strongly directed.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, really.

Mr. Grossman: Is the Treasurer crazy? The former Minister of Education is here today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought I would just put that out for discussion.

Miss Stephenson: Would the Treasurer like to step outside?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The questioners will be aware that this year we allocated well over $2 billion for the post-secondary system, with an increase --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Peace, peace; it is Christmas -- with an increase of $119 million, fulfilling the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) for special quality funding of an additional $60 million. This was not greeted with much enthusiasm by the leaders in the post-secondary community, just as year by year for the past decade the allocations have probably been considered inadequate by people on both sides of the House. Obviously, there has to be more funding for the post-secondary system, but we have to share the scarce funds among many demanding sectors of the economy.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is not here this morning, but the member can imagine how concerned he is that health services get their fair share, and so it goes. It seems to me to be unreasonable for me as Treasurer to expect the leadership in the post-secondary community to say, "We are going to arrange our costs in these ways and improve efficiency." They believe they are as efficient as they can be with the structure of the post-secondary system that has been established over these many years.

At the same time, the government of Canada has announced unilaterally and aggressively, without consultation, that it is going to reduce the rate of increase of the transfers, which at the end of the fifth year will reduce our money for post-secondary education and health in this jurisdiction by $2 billion. What is a poor Treasurer supposed to do? A Treasurer will feel constrained to provide some leadership, not in the autonomy of education but in improving efficiency in the provision of post-secondary education.

My announcement about the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education was a start in that regard, and I hope reasonable voices at the University of Toronto and at OISE will move in a progressive, efficient and useful way to permit the transfers of funds to OISE --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McFadden: At the rally yesterday, the Treasurer specifically used the words "rationalization around the same time and in the context of the closing of OISE," and he referred to "rationalization of the Ontario university system."

Will the Treasurer please indicate to the House what he means by "rationalization"? Does he mean the closures, mergers, amalgamations and disappearances of schools or entire universities? In the whole context of rationalization, is he proposing to consult or is he proposing to go ahead with the kind of process that happened with OISE; namely, an announcement in a budget without any consultation with the university community whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No announcement that OISE is going to be closed has been made in the budget or by anyone except some extremists at the meeting yesterday. Obviously, we need educational research in this community and I was a part of the opposition when, along with Walter Pitman, as I understand it, we urged the government of the day to provide funds for educational research.

We believe OISE's facilities should be administered by the University of Toronto. There has been no indication of closing it, no indication of laying off of staff, and no indication of doing anything but continuing that particularly attractive acronym. What we want is a rationalization of the administration of the organization so that the organizations operating on each side of Bloor Street West can have the benefit of the efficiencies and, we hope, the cost savings of coming under the board of the University of Toronto. In my view, there is no indication that the moneys available for research in education would be reduced, but rather that they would be applied in an efficient and judicious way.

10:40 a.m.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Strikes in education are not the only public sector strikes about which our party has a concern.

I would like to ask the minister about public health nurses. He will be aware that there have been lockouts or strikes of public health nurses in all parts of the province this year: Essex, Kent county, Oxford county and one in Kingston that dragged on for more than six months. Will the Minister of Labour tell the House the status of the public health nurses' strike in Chatham-Kent?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know the Essex strike has been settled. At last report the Chatham-Kent strike was still under way. Obviously, my officials are watching these disputes very closely. I am a member in an area -- Windsor and Essex county -- where we had a very lengthy strike. They are very unhappy disputes, but we hope that over a period of time these matters can be settled by the parties at the bargaining table. We certainly hope such will be the case in this individual strike.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the minister will understand that these strikes are of grave concern to the citizens who are affected by them.

His answer is somewhat at variance with what he told a demonstration in front of the Legislature on June 12. At that time, as Labour critic for his party, he indicated sympathy for the prospect of sending disputes with health units to compulsory arbitration for settlement. The nurses walked away that day with that understanding.

Is that still his position as Minister of Labour, or is his position the one he just indicated in his answer, that he would rather these disputes be settled by conciliation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The comment I made in my first response and the comment I will make again is that this government believes it is appropriate in as many circumstances as possible, whether we have the right to strike as the final right or whether we deny the right to strike and have a right to go to arbitration, for the parties to bargain collectively and reach an agreement among themselves. That allows for the best possible relationship.

Since taking office, the government has been reviewing and will continue to review very closely and very carefully on an issue-by-issue basis whether the situation in which not only the public health nurses but other groups find themselves is appropriate, whether they have the right to strike or whether that right is denied. As our review goes forward and as we believe there may be appropriate changes -- and I know the views of the public health nurses -- we will bring them forward to the member and to the Legislature.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would suggest the comments the minister made out front to the demonstration when he was an opposition critic were made because that is what he knew the Ontario Nurses' Association wanted to hear on that particular day.

Would the minister not agree that it is fair to say that public health nurses in public health units should be paid the same wages as hospital nurses? If he agrees with that proposition, would he not talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and say that public health units should be funded appropriately so that equity can come about, just as was done in 1976 by the then Minister of Health, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller)? Can he not do the same thing?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I find my friend's views very interesting. I am a little surprised my friend would not support this government in its desire that the parties bargain collectively to reach an agreement. On this matter of parity, I am sure that is a thought he might want to put to my colleague the Minister of Health.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In November 1984, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) revealed that Ethyl Canada was discharging lead into the St. Clair River at levels twice those permitted by ministry guidelines. We now find that this dumping is continuing and that this one company is discharging into the St. Clair River more on a daily basis than do all the industries that discharge into the Niagara River.

Can the minister not confirm that nothing has been done, one year after this was revealed, to control this discharge? Does the minister not agree it is about time charges were laid?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would indicate to the honourable member that while I cannot say nothing has been done, as the Minister of the Environment I am not satisfied that Ethyl Canada is producing the kind of effluent that is environmentally acceptable to people in that area or to people in any part of Canada. What I am saying to her, however, is that certain action has taken place. For instance, there are meetings currently taking place with the companies in question.

Mr. McClellan: What does that mean? They are still polluting. Is that what the minister is trying to say?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) would want to be assured that is the case.

Mrs. Grier: He is not interested at all.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Sorry, the leader of the third party -- it was a slip there -- who is interjecting at this time, would want to be assured that is taking place. Ministry officials are making known to the company our dissatisfaction with the discharges that have taken place and continue to take place, with a view to further reductions in the parameters that were in question. As well, the upper Great Lakes connecting channel study group is in the process of undertaking a survey which will alter the effluent criteria in the future for all the industries in this area. The member would want to be assured that is taking place.

As to the question of charges, about which the member legitimately asks, I have asked my ministry, through the investigations and enforcement branch, to determine whether charges can be pressed in this case. If there is sufficient evidence to warrant charges -- and from information provided it appears that might be the case -- I can assure the member that charges will be laid.

Mrs. Grier: I recognize that the minister is concerned, that he is having meetings and making known his dissatisfaction, but is he not vitally concerned that there is some immediate action to stop what is happening on a daily basis? There was evidence last March from Environment Canada. He has the power to put out control orders.

Will he order a public inquiry into the whole range of problems being revealed on a daily basis down there? We want some action, and I do not hear the minister agreeing to do that. When might we see some concrete action and some firm control orders? When he puts those in place, then he can continue with his investigation.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In my view, control orders, as opposed to certificates of approval, appear to be the only solution in many of the cases. There is another method of handling the situation which is provided for at present; that is, the development of a very strong regulation which would meet the concerns of a lot of people and which would apply to all the industries located along the St. Clair River and to industries in other parts of the province that are not meeting the requirements and expectations of the Ministry of the Environment.

The member can be assured that this minister wishes to take immediate action when matters of this kind are brought to his attention. I give her the assurance that immediate action will be taken and I will report back to the House next week, if she wishes to ask further about it.

Mr. Brandt: The minister would not want to give the impression that Ethyl Canada has not made some efforts towards a cleanup of its problem over the years with respect to tetraethyl lead emissions.

Mr. McClellan: Let us hear it for the polluters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question?

Mr. Brandt: It must be feeding time in the third party. I welcome the member's participation.

Would the minister indicate to the House what the total level of capital expenditure has been by Ethyl Canada with respect to pollution abatement programs over the past 10 years?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not have those specific figures, but I do want to say to the former Minister of the Environment and the former Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party that, regardless of how much money has been spent by Ethyl Canada over the last number of years and regardless of what activities have taken place to diminish the amount of effluent going into the river, I am not convinced at this time that the effort has been sufficient. Whatever amount of money is required to protect the environment and the health and safety of people in that area should be expended.

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers who sold slaughter cattle in October, prior to the recent increases in prices, will not be eligible for the 1985 stabilization payments. Are there any plans to assist these producers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First, let me applaud myself. For farmers who sold their cattle in October and are not eligible for assistance, it means they were receiving a sufficiently high price that would not trigger the stabilization payment. No, we have no plans to see they get any payment.

Mr. Stevenson: The farmers who sold in October did not get a high price. All other ministers in Canada who have not signed the stabilization agreement can still make independent payments. This minister rushed into signing the tripartite agreement to polish his image prior to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting. Is it true he is now the only agricultural minister in Canada who cannot help the producers who sold in October, prior to the recent price increase?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The minister signed the agreement at the request of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Sheep Association. This is a government that consults with those organizations before it does anything, quite unlike the previous government.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the failure of his ministry to provide services in the various children's mental health and protection agencies, particularly for adolescents in Algoma district.

Can he indicate whether the needs study that has been initiated by his ministry has found that there are indeed inadequate intake and assessment services, to the point that local agencies are having to refer kids to Michigan; that there is no co-ordinated crisis intervention program for suicide attempts or sexual, drug and alcohol abuse cases in Algoma; that there are no day treatment programs for adolescents with behavioural, emotional or psychological problems; that the closest short-term or long-term treatment facility for children and adolescents is in southern Ontario, hundreds of miles away, and that there are inadequate outpatient counselling services in Algoma district?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain what effort he is prepared to take to provide the direction and funds required to upgrade the needed mental health programs for children and adolescents in Algoma and how long it is going to take?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Since this ministry has taken over children's mental health, the number of centres has increased from approximately 50 to about 85, of which 14 have been in northern Ontario.

The member is well aware this ministry is at present involved with establishing the Algoma Child and Youth Services in his community and that we are working very closely with the community board of that facility to get that program off the ground as quickly as possible. I hope that would be some time within the next couple of months.

Mr. Wildman: I do not understand why the minister is defending the poor record of the previous government and the Algoma Child and Youth Services in this area.

Is the minister aware of one sexually abused child who has made seven suicide attempts but has never been given adequate follow-up treatment? When is he going to provide crisis intervention, intake and assessment, and residential treatment services for adolescents in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district, much like those in the other districts, even those in the north that are underserviced?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am well aware that there are waiting lists all across Ontario for children who have mental health problems. The north has particular problems and, as I indicated, they are being dealt with at present.

I am also in the process right at the moment of renegotiating with the federal government cost-sharing arrangements which could bring in up to an additional $30 million, so that we can provide more services all across the province, including northern Ontario, for children who have particular mental health problems.

Mr. Cousens: Has the minister been up north to look at the problem that is being asked about?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In the last two months I have had an extensive tour of northeastern Ontario and within the last three weeks a tour of northwestern Ontario. I have visited family resource centres, homes for the aged and children's mental health centres.

Mr. Cousens: Did the minister visit that one?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes.

VISITOR

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Liberal MP, the former Solicitor General, Robert Kaplan. I see him currently meeting with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). I devoutly hope he will meet with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) after question period and explain a few things about de Havilland to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the members would join me in welcoming the Honourable Mr. Kaplan.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Attorney General. The minister has told the House his ministry has a policy for dealing with sexual assault victims to see that they are "properly prepared for trial and initiated into the process in a way that makes them reasonably comfortable."

Does the Attorney General not see that assistance programs for the victims of other equally serious crimes are desperately needed? Will he move immediately to put such a program into place?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. He will recognize from his days on this side that there is such a program that relates to sexual assault cases. We are looking at the possibility of extending it to other cases, but no decisions have been made. There is a substantial cost in programs of this type and it is very important that it should be done effectively across the province in sexual assault cases first.

Mr. Pope: Reviewing the matter does not do anything to put the program into place. The minister's estimates now make no provision for the funding of victim-witness assistance programs that were initiated by the former government. I ask the Attorney General to indicate immediately his commitment to help these victims and these witnesses and restore to that program the funding that was taken away.

Hon. Mr. Scott: My honourable friend, perhaps as a result of his success at the convention where he made such an effective speech, has forgotten that the estimates I am dealing with are the estimates he presented.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unchanged.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If he would like to attend on any basis before the standing committee on administration of justice, he would find out that those programs are being provided by the ministry and will continue to be provided.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, again on the matter of insurance. The minister will know that his superintendent of insurance -- I assume with the minister's approval -- has taken steps to limit competition in the sale of life insurance; in effect, he prohibited insurance brokers from shopping around to acquire the cheapest life insurance for their clients.

Recognizing that there sometimes are differences of 50 per cent to 100 per cent in the rates from different companies, why is the minister backing the wealthy life insurance companies in their effort to restrict competition against the best interests of the public and even the best interests of the agents and brokers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold raises a question that certainly has a lot of different sides to it. Some insurance agents are unhappy with that matter, but the industry as a whole seems to be very supportive of it.

Mr. McClellan: What a surprise.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The whole essence of that is to try to protect the consumers so we do not have people holding themselves out to be representatives of insurance companies when they are not. We are monitoring that situation. We have had input from all aspects of the industry and that seems to be the general consensus.

Mr. Swart: The minister must know that Ontario is one of the few provinces in Canada, perhaps the only one, that does not allow brokers in the life insurance industry. He must also know that with today's computer software it is possible for brokers to determine almost immediately where the best deal can be obtained for their customers.

Given that concerned agents and brokers are holding a rally four days from now to protest the minister's arbitrary limitations on competition, will he give a commitment that he will rescind subsection 346(13) of the Insurance Act and directly license brokers and agents to sell insurance from any companies that think they can give consumers the best deal on life insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Any broker who wants to represent a company can get representation.

Mr. Swart: No.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is correct. All we are trying to do is bring some regularity to the industry.

Mr. Gregory: I have a supplementary to the question raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, who obviously has no knowledge of the life insurance business or he would not have asked such a dumb question. It is impossible to treat the sale of life insurance through a broker in the same way as general insurance, as my friend has suggested.

Can I have the minister's assurance that he will not tamper with a system that has been very successful over the past years?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can certainly give the honourable member my assurance on that.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to inform the House that we would be willing to revert to statements should the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), following his meeting with Mr. Kaplan --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in question period. We do not want to waste members' time.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Andrewes: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding beer and wine in grocery stores. The minister will know that the official position of the Liberal Party, as set out in its communiqué of April 15, 1985, was, "The Ontario Liberal Party proposes the sale of domestic beer and wine in independently owned and specialty stores."

It now appears from press reports that position has been amended and that the commitment to the public and to the industry on domestic wine will be broken and wines from the United States and Europe will be included in the proposed legislation. Will the minister verify that, please?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There has been no release of any information in regard to what our policy is going to be on that. It will be going to cabinet, but there has been no determination. However, there is an awareness that we are under severe pressure from both our US trading partners and members of the European Community under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to make sure we treat them fairly. Pending the ongoing negotiations, that fact will determine how we deal with that policy.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister seems to be walking on eggs. What does he say to groups such as the grape growers in Ontario, the Ontario Wine Council, the Grape Action Committee and all the other groups that believed the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he told them last April it would be domestic wine only as part of the Liberal policy? What does he say to these groups? Does he simply say that is another broken promise in a long string this party has offered --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you would let the minister answer rather than answer yourself.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The honourable member raises some very interesting hypotheses, but he raises them without any knowledge. He has no idea what our policy is going to be when we bring it in. When we do, he will see it.

Mr. Rae: The minister says we have no idea what the policy is going to be. It sounds as if the minister does not have any idea what the policy is going to be either.

Can the minister tell us when this much-vaunted and much-touted legislation is going to see the light of day so we will have a chance to discuss it in this Legislature and treat it in the way it so richly deserves?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The policy has been formulated in draft form. It will be going to committee of cabinet prior to Christmas. What happens after it gets to cabinet is in the hands of the Premier.

PRENTICE-HALL CANADA

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He knows Gulf and Western has an application before Investment Canada to be allowed to buy Prentice-Hall Canada. He also knows that decision will be made by December 31, 1985. Can the minister inform the House whether his ministry has made a formal response to the federal government as to his government's position on the sale of Prentice-Hall?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, it has, and a very strong one. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has stated where we stand on that matter, as has the minister.

Mr. Grande: The minister says that response has been made. To the best of my information, there has been no formal response to Investment Canada. Will the minister table his government's response to Investment Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will be very pleased to table it. I sent a letter some time back, and I will be very pleased to send a copy of it to the honourable member.

SUMMER WAGES

Mr. Pierce: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It has been a number of weeks since the minister referred to the fact that he was going to ensure his ministry paid the students and young people who worked for the contractors who planted the trees in northwestern Ontario this summer. Since it is almost Christmas, I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that these young people will get their money in the near future and before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am a little disturbed by the question in the sense that for the first time in the history of this province a government has taken the initiative to make up for the shortcomings of another government's poor contracting. The very basic and fundamental way in which people should be treated in the guaranteeing of their wages was not done by the former government.

With pressure to make a decision from many sides, including all parties, the determination to change policy was made by this minister. I am very disappointed the member is not being more helpful, but rather is causing some embarrassment about the time frame. It is going to be done as quickly as we can do it. Also, I give the House the assurance that it will not happen again, because this government knows how to do business and it will make sure our people are paid.

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Hennessy: I have three petitions. The first is to the Premier (Mr. Peterson):

"Henry Morgentaler's case is still before the courts, yet your government is allowing him to continue to break the law and operate his abortuary. No other person facing criminal charges is permitted to continue criminal activities while waiting for his case to be heard. Close the abortuary and have bail set so that Morgentaler cannot continue his killing business."

The second petition is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston):

"I am opposed to government-run community abortuaries or hospitals enforcing therapeutic abortion committees. I understand your government and department of health are considering these actions. Thirty thousand abortions are performed annually in Ontario. There is no need to widen access for our funded killings."

11:10 a.m.

The third one goes to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott):

"Abortions are rarely, if ever, required for medical reasons. Would any other person facing criminal charges be allowed to continue his criminal activities? I am against government-licensed abortion clinics, which I understand your government is considering."

I present these petitions, which are signed by about 400 people, to the various ministers I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to listen. There was a lot of noise. I do not know whether they were addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Hennessy: They are, yes.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: Under the provisions of standing order 33(b), I wish to present the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, request that the 1984-85 annual report of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education be referred to the standing committee on social development."

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on, and in the evening of, Thursday, December 12, 1985, with respect to the matter of privilege concerning the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, December 10, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Harris be substituted for Mr. Eves on the standing committee on public accounts.

Motion agreed to.

REFERRAL OF REPORT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the report on the audit of forest management activity by the Office of the Provincial Auditor, tabled on November 1, 1985, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved, second by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Leluk moved, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.